evolutionary argument is humans are aligned with broad spectrum radiation from the sun, but not the artificial forms which have different magnitudes in different frequencies.
Eg: you are much less likely to get sunburn if you get plenty of natural (or artificial) infrared.
There is no such thing as artificial forms of RF. They're all wiggling photons.
If nature gave us a flute, and man discovered how to make a bass guitar, all though they sound different the only real difference is that the bass guitar is wiggling air molecules more slowly than a flute would. There is zero, nil, no distinction whatsoever between a "natural" and "synthetic" photon wiggling at a given frequency.
> you are much less likely to get sunburn if you get plenty of natural (or artificial) infrared.
I have an FCC certification vouching that I know what those words mean. Your linked diatribe says, quote, "All types of man-made EMFs/EMR". All. Antennas are polarized because that's the easiest way to build them, and the polarization has nice properties.
A standard incandescent lightbulb creates about 100W of unpolarized RF from around 400THz to 750THz. It is manmade, it's an RF emitter, it is not polarized, and it's something everyone older than the age of around 10 has spent their entire lives around.
So either the author is completely wrong in sentence number 2, or they're implying that visible light isn't RF. Either way, they're wrong, and you can ignore the rest of their claims.
> Your linked diatribe says, quote, "All types of man-made EMFs/EMR". All. Antennas are polarized because that's the easiest way to build them, and the polarization has nice properties.
You are comparing light bulbs to wireless communications? What is your point? He says "All types of man-made EMFs/EMR", not "all types of manmade energy". It is clear he does not think that light bulbs are dangerous. So now you are just being confusing on purpose to muddy the water.
But if you bother to READ the whole article you would see he agrees with you:
"Natural EMR/EMFs (cosmic microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, gamma rays) and several forms of artificially triggered electromagnetic emissions (such as from light bulbs with thermal filaments, gas discharge lamps, x-rays, lasers, etc.) are not polarized. "
You know we were talking about EMFs from data communication types of man-made EMFs/EMR"s, but you are being ignorant on purpose, becasue you cannot even read anything that is new and conflicts with your ideas.
> You are comparing light bulbs to wireless communications? What is your point?
Visible light and Wi-Fi are the same physical phenomenon, just at different frequencies.
> several forms of artificially triggered electromagnetic emissions (such as from light bulbs with thermal filaments, gas discharge lamps, x-rays, lasers, etc.) are not polarized.
So, he contradicts himself.
Also:
> Natural EMR/EMFs (cosmic microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, gamma rays) [...] are not polarized.
Oh yes they absolutely can be, and frequently are. Polarized sunglasses are specifically made to block the polarized light reflecting off lakes, snow, sand, or other surfaces. Does the author consider light reflecting off a lake to be unnatural, or is it the OK kind of polarized because it's "natural"?
I'm pretty sure their point is that certain frequencies are getting a lot more power than is naturally possible. Not that the photons are special in some way.
I'm not so sure. Even in these threads we see specious distinctions between "natural" and "man-made" EMF.
But even then, it's impossible to discuss without talking about relative strengths. Wi-Fi transmits at about 100mW at full strength. For math purposes, let's assume it's a point source broadcasting in all directions. (That's not that much of a wild assumption, either.) The surface area of a sphere with a radius of 1m is about 12.5 m^2. On average, then, the Wi-Fi RF strength at 1m away is about 0.008W/m^2.
The sun above us delivers about 1360W/m^2 of RF radiation, or approximately 170,000 times the radiation of standing a meter from a Wi-Fi router. If it's across the room, 4m away, the ratio is closer to 3,000,000:1.
Even if our bodies responded to "man-made" radiation differently than the "good, natural" kind, there's so very little of it relatively that it can't make much of a difference. I mean, ever look at a 100W lightbulb? If Wi-Fi were at 400THz instead of 2.4GHz so that you could see it, it would be one thousandth as bright. There's just not enough power there to do anything meaningful to us.
> There's just not enough power there to do anything meaningful to us.
Unless specific frequency bands cause problems because something very specific is triggered.
Sure, wifi may only be hitting you with 1 milliwatt per square meter. But between 2.4GHz and 2.5GHz the sun only hits you with... if I did the math right, and just accounting for blackbody emissions, around 10 picowatts per square meter.
We're probably fine, but whether it's fine can't be proven with a simple physics calculation that ignores spectrum.
Product Engineer - I work towards building the right thing and building it right
About me: Based in London. Physics Engineer MSc turned into Software and Startups. Domain expertise in Energy, Supply Chain. Available part-time while working on my own thing.
Past work
- Tech Lead on a Supply-Chain pilot with Blockchain
- Full-stack Developer responsible for the website, dashboards, e-commerce, tools and status on an IaaS platform
Stack
Bread and butter: Ruby on Rails, Heroku, AWS, Digital Ocean, Ops, Javascript, Ethereum
Exploring: golang, rust, Substrate, Cosmos-sdk
I've been burnout sometimes, can relate to some of this. But don't underestimate the importance of your health.
My advice:
Be clear with the founders of your core feeling of burnout and _inform_ them you need to take 4 weeks+ vacations to recover. Make it non-negotiable.
Avoid as much as you can going into the details.
You are likely right about many parts of your assessment as that level of incompetence is not uncommon and likely wrong about some as your naturally in psychological pain. Between the emotional turmoil of burnout and what appears to be a fairly dysfunctional work environment I think it's unwise to make big decisions or trigger big retrospectives without the clarity that comes with a mind well rested.
If you had a really good relationship with the team, scaling the work down to 4h/day max could be good to, but I suspect it will not be effective in this case so I would avoid that too.
It also makes money, tax-free. And by quoting scripture, it helps politicians and grifters appear to be above board to some people, without requiring them to make the sacrifices faith asks for.
Get rid of those aspects, and religion really will disappear.
I believe you are accidentally describing equanimity. Which I think it would be a much better function to optimize for than happiness, at any scale.
The article has some interesting points but I believe it lacks a reflection from the eastern point of view and a critique to capitalism as it does for socialism.
You're right, he takes off from some observations about the Soviet union. Perhaps the main issue with that is pretty much everyone thought that was a terrible system and thus we are prepared to accept the viewpoint about happiness that he presents.
Free markets, as I prefer to call it, are different. There's a fair case that a lot of good has come from it, along with not so good things. Thus to present the case from a free markets point of view would require a fair bit more explanation:
- Why is it that you're not more happy being able to choose from 10 varieties of toothpaste than when you just buy the one that is there?
- People who work minimum wage jobs, why are they not happy there was at least that? They's be starving otherwise, right? Why aren't they all grateful?
- What is it about extreme specialization that's so unsatisfying? Even Adam Smith touched on this IIRC.
> I believe you are accidentally describing equanimity
Honestly when I read this I was not expecting it to touch politics and how societies organize themselves. My point is not that capitalism is bad for happiness, is that I don't think politics are that relevant in the discussion.
Happiness is almost always defined as the opposite to something else. As a solution for a problem. Socialism and Free markets and many other structures provide slightly different manners to enable those solutions. This is what your average zen monk would perhaps call duality.
But being happy is fundamentally a game where the only winning move is not to play. Equanimity, as acceptance of the present is a much more sustainable approach to use a more common language.
If we want to talk about which system would favour this better, well, I honestly don't know. I feel this is much more deeper matter of education, philosophy and appreciation for life. Freedom of speech is probably better for it but I'm not sure it makes a significant difference and we will not be able to measure it.
Socialism might remove the struggle of life and therefore the meaning of it. Free markets fosters artificial struggles and distractions to life, making meaning artificial. You could then argue that all meaning is ultimately artificial, which I would probably agree, but I don't see how it makes it better.
Ultimately, I don't think the solution is in the society. It must be the individual, only he/she/it transcends. Any transmission of that happens via direct experience, or a lot of books and introspection, not abstract models that you can teach easily. I have no idea how to do this at scale, I suspect it is not possible.
But the closest ideal would probably be to just teach and discuss philosophy across the world for the genuine interest of leading a better life and not to project status.
Specialize is possible as someone mentioned, but I think the essential is segment.
You can still be a generalist as long as you put those skills to the service of a specific community. This could be region, vertical, domain, etc. The important part is to be clear who are you aiming at, so you can hustle and leverage the network/reference effect in there.
This is completely focused on the financial side of the business. The innovation & marketing factors are not being considered, and those are precisely the elements that allow Apple to keep their high margin.
If a product is - or at least is perceived - to be 100% better than the others, paying just an extra 30% is a win in the mind of consumers
We know the landing page is not where we want it to be. Hence, it is specially important to get concrete feedback on what should be considered in the next update.
Eg: you are much less likely to get sunburn if you get plenty of natural (or artificial) infrared.